We can't say anything concrete about how Raff Ciccone voted on increasing protection of Aboriginal heritage sites
How Raff Ciccone voted compared to someone who agrees that the federal government should increase the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage sites
Most important divisions relevant to this policy
These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for increasing protection of Aboriginal heritage sites” which Raff Ciccone could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Raff Ciccone on this policy.
| Division | Raff Ciccone | Supporters vote | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| no votes listed | ||||||
Other divisions relevant to this policy
These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for increasing protection of Aboriginal heritage sites” which Raff Ciccone could have attended.
| Division | Raff Ciccone | Supporters vote |
|---|---|---|
7th Oct 2020, 5:25 PM – Senate Motions - Mining - Rio Tinto |
absent | Yes |
11th Jun 2020, 4:16 PM – Senate Motions - Juukan Gorge - Protect First Nations heritage |
absent | Yes |
25th Feb 2020, 4:26 PM – Senate Motions - Gas Industry - Protect climate |
No | Yes |
How "We can't say anything concrete about how they voted on" is worked out
Raff Ciccone has only voted once on this policy and it wasn't on a "strong" vote. So it's not possible to draw a clear conclusion about their position.
This could be because there were simply not many relevant divisions (formal votes) during the time they've been in parliament (most votes happen on "the voices", so we simply have no decent record) or they were absent for votes that could have contributed to their voting record.